To discuss: Does anyone have other or better approaches for bottom-up implementation?

[nathalie-ckc]

Per discussion in the 2nd Composables call, creating "to do" items in Github Issues for areas where we could use help from devs who want to contribute.

This question comes from the 3rd Composables call.

[niusealeo]

I think it would be a good idea to break down the ComposablesBottomUp and ComposablesTopDown contract implementations into separate files for each of NFT ERC721 and FT ERC20/223 composable elements. Then provide example contracts that inherit each of the broken down granular contracts to create contracts with functionality equivalent to the current all-inclusive examples. This will make it easier for developers exploring this module to mix and match their preferred features without having to do too much copy paste.

[mudgen]

@viltiki I agree with you. Such an implementation would be welcome.

[qbig]

as per https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-998.md, is ERC998ERC20BottomUp missing here? @mudgen

[qbig]

ERC20 Bottom-Up Composable interesting decision to make ERC998ERC20BottomUp an ERC20 token in itself? But what if we want to allow vanila ERC721 to own valina ERC20 tokens? Or do we have to use of combination of ERC998ERC721BottomUp+ERC998ERC20TopDown to achieve this ?